Comments on: Washington Marriage Opponents File Signatureshttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000hourly1By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125545
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:04:16 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125545Good point, SA. The Washington voters are already familiar with “vote yes for gay rights” as that was the way it worked for Ref 71 as well.
]]>By: Secret Advocatehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125544
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:41:29 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125544I remember a similar thing happening with the referendum on the domestic partnership law in 2009. Our side was greatly concerned about so-called “wrong-way voting” and took great pains in its campaign to tell people what yes and no really meant.

I suppose that the problem will be lessened when the sides begin running their commercials, and then when people actually go into the voting booth, where the specific question is laid out in front of them.

Dave Fleischer’s massive report about the Proposition 8 campaign and results found that the Yes-on-8 side (i.e., the anti-gay marriage side) actually suffered a net loss of about 400,000 votes due to “wrong-way voting.” There were people who thought that, to say “no” to gay marriage, they had to vote “no” on Proposition 8. That, of course, was wrong.

Proposition 8, as we know, passed anyway, but Mr. Fleischer cautioned that our side did not really lose by “only” a margin of 52.2% to 47.8%. If all of the voters had truly voted in accordance with their intentions, then Proposition 8 would have passed by a margin of more like 54% to 46%. That warning was probably taken into account by LGBT rights organizations in their consideration of whather the put the issue on the ballot again.

In the same vein, wrong-way “thinking” may have been one of the reasons why Proposition 8 had trailed so greatly in the polls until mid-September of 2008.

]]>By: garhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125542
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:19:40 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125542I’m wondering what effect, if any, the 9th cir’s decision on Prop 8 will have on WA, since WA is in 9th cir. territory. I suppose if the 9th Cir. decision only applies to CA, it may at least help to get rid of WA’s anti-equality law, should it pass. It just means it will take longer for people to get married.

Any legal minds with any thoughts on this?

]]>By: Nathanielhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125515
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:54:28 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125515I think it will be easier to keep up with in the long run. In all cases, people were voting on Marriage equality, but ‘no’ was for equality and ‘yes’ was against. This time, ‘yes’ is for and ‘no’ is against. I think both sides will have an easy time spelling that out. Being on the ‘yes’ side may even help us, if people vote for something positive.
]]>By: Hyhybthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125467
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:19:10 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125467Is the other potential ballot item still in play? The one that’s on the same issue, but with the positions reversed, so you have to vote “no” on one and “yes” on the other? Or did they either give up or fail on that one?
]]>By: Stefanhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/06/45375/comment-page-1#comment-125464
Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:11:22 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45375#comment-125464I still think it’ll be good for our side. The question is very straightforward; approve or reject same sex marriage.

I’m interning for Minnesotans United for All Families and we constantly have to explain the language to people. Cases like the woman listed above in Washington I’m sure are few and far between.